In an article in The Times last November,
It is notable that no evidence is presented to even attempt to justify the claim that Richard Dawkins misrepresents anything, far less religion, which only goes to prove that Murphy-O’Connor is culpable of the charge that he levies against Dawkins, and a victim of his own prejudices.
It will also be noticed that the mendacious Cardinal does not use the ‘devil-word’, atheist!
However, it gets better, for the Arch-Humbug of Christendom continues:
Oh dear, the Cardinal-Charlatan is upset when the sane amongst us refuse to share his delusions and irrational faith (with apologies for that oxymoron) in some make-believe supernatural entity, and has to resort to name-calling since he cannot meet fair demands for proof that this so-called god he claims to believe in exists, or, indeed, ever did. Poor diddums. And as for this ‘Christian seed in what is noble and good in Western culture’ to which he refers, what is that, exactly, and how does it compare with, say, ‘the xtian seed in what is ignoble and bad in Western culture’?
But the Old Charlatan’s most incisive critique of science and rationalism is his completely untruthful, and logically invalid, attack on atheism in general and Richard Dawkins in particular:
What is lacking in the new secular aggressiveness is the very Christian virtue of doubt. Only secularists such as Professor Dawkins seem to have no doubt when it comes to faith.
The very xtian virtue of doubt? How can you speak of such a thing, when the only doubt that most of you seem to have is that your so-called beliefs are not completely delusional? But since your so-called beliefs cannot stand up to logical and scientific principles, they are correctly classified as mere faith, i.e. they represent a belief system which is immunised against evidence. Consequently, anyone who has no doubt that the irrational outpourings of so-called believers do not merit the same kind of respect as rational debate and scientific evidence is either a credulous buffoon or a mendacious charlatan. Which are you, Cardinal Archbishop?